DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... If the King had his way

Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'

WASHINGTON — They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the corrosive influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the related topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier — not harder— for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

"If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," Obama said, calling it potentially transformative. Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would "counteract money more than anything."

Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls," he said in a veiled reference to efforts in a number of Republican-led states to make it harder for people to vote.

Statistically speaking, Obama is correct. Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.

At least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.

At issue, Obama said, is the outsize influence that those with money can have on U.S. elections, where low overall turnout often gives an advantage to the party best able to turn out its base. Obama has opposed Citizens United and other court rulings that cleared the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign spending, but embraced such groups in his 2012 re-election campaign out of fear he'd be outspent.

Obama said he thought it would be "fun" for the U.S. to consider amending the Constitution to change the role that money plays in the electoral system. But don't hold your breath.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/m...cid=ansnewsap11

Mandatory voting? Dictator...

I get what he's saying but I don't agree. If I don't want to vote, then don't try to hold a gun to my head to make me. All you are guaranteeing is that I'll vote against you and/or your party every single time.

From what I can tell, there are several reasons for a person not to vote.

1. Apathy: They just don't care and they believe that it doesn't matter who you vote for or which party, the same story will play out over and over again.

2. Uneducated: those that can't decide but want to vote so out of frustration with all the bull that's being slung, they decide "to heck with it". Another form of apathy

3. Lazy: Those that are JUST to damn lazy to get out and vote.

4. Dead: wait, they still vote don't they? oh yeah, only in Chicago!

So voter ID is bad but mandatory voting is good?

You know, I saw where he thought it would be a good idea. Yet I saw nowhere that he planned to propose it or try to make it law.

And you know what, people voting is a good idea.

+1
There is NO intent to force this.
He's just saying it sure would help.

Has anyone ever watched Watter's World on Fox news or the Jimmy Kimmel interviews on the street? Some people shouldn't vote because they're stupid. These statements kind of make me wonder if the democrats have done a study that determines most uninformed voters will pick the first name on the list, and they'll demand democrats are always listed first.

Also alot of issues that could turn up. What if someone is senile? what if they are illiterate? What if they are 70 and in a nursing home? Who is going to pay to bus them to the polling center? The taxpayers? And is this for all elections, including special elections? primaries? straw polls?

Sure maybe they can provide documentation to "prove" this stuff but isn't that invasive? If someone can't read do they *really* want the embarrasment of declaring such? Would this stuff fall under HIPAA?

And what is the penalty for non-compliance? Let me guess. A fine. So we'd essentially be taxing the elderly and disabled. Good job!

No doubt the redneck ignorance is much better. If you don't take that Minority off the ballot, they'll just pull out the concealed fire-arm wrapped in a confederate flag.

Yeah, that's just about as accurate.

OK so where is the quote where he actually says voting should be mandatory, or that he would even like it to be mandatory? All I see is a statement where he would like it if everybody voted.

Why do I even click on these threads?

one-word answer:

Masochism.

Well, let's see... he referenced a country where voting is mandatory as a reference that it is possible to do.

He alluded to the fact that democrats would win more (not less) because the young, poor, and minorities who vote less, vote democrat in overwhelming numbers when they do vote.

He doesn't have to come out and say that he plans to push it forward... in politics this is known as "floating an idea"... you put it out there in some hypothetical sense, see what kind of traction it gets, see who agrees and who opposes... then if you get the response you wanted, then you go back and seriously contemplate whether it should become a formal proposal..

This will not happen during his term, he's just laying the groundwork and establishing a baseline to see if future democrats might want to pursue it.

You don't find it the least bit odd that just as they are fighting to make millions of illegals citizens, he floats the idea of mandatory voting..... for citizens?

by Millcreek above:

"But don't hold your breath."

But what if I want to hold my breath?

clevesteve, you funny.

You click on these threads because It's Mandatory.

Now sit down and keep working your way through the Forum.

sigh....

j/c

With all the opportunities to vote, as it is today, (early voting, voting by mail, polls are open from early morning till late evening).....anyone that doesn't vote doesn't have a desire to.

I believe some cities even offer free bus rides for people going to vote. Community groups offer free rides.

Voting is easy - for those that WANT to vote. What's next? "to make voting easier, we'll be sending poll workers out to each individual home and/or workplace."?

No Arch, they only do that for the census. You know, when it benefits funding and such and to know your business.

So CSPAN is providing the video of the talk but I can't view it on the browsers at work. I think based on the transcript snippets it appears around 1:00:00 or later. If someone who is interested would be so kind as to give the proper context...

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324895-1/president-obama-remarks-cleveland-middle-class-economics

Starts at about hour and 11 min.

He was asked a question about "citizens united"...and in his long, drawn out reply (as most of his replies to all questions were), he made mention of Australia and their mandatory voting.....and how he thinks that would transform our election process and it would downplay money in the election process (prior to saying that, he said something along the lines of "now, money pretty much determines elections, and don't get me wrong, I was good at raising money....blah blah blah....")

In listening to him.......hey, it wasn't a prepared speech, he was answering off the cuff, so to speak.

He wasn't necessarily endorsing or asking for mandatory voting by any stretch. (now, DC did have a point about illegals becoming citizens, etc)

But no, in listening to him in context - dude was just talking.

And if Arch says this - trust me. No agenda here. (trust me, I'm not hillary)

Thanks for taking the time to listen and fill us in, Arch.

No, what they should do is like they do in Chicago. Send one guy to the polls and he votes for everybody. The rest of us can stay home and watch Maury.

Where in my post did I mention any type of minority? People who are uniformed about who or what they are voting for, in other words, stupid, should not vote. I don't care what color they are. Most of the stupid that I spoke with before the 2008 election were voting for obama because he gave a good speech. None of them knew anything that he stood for, just that he gave a good speech. Don't you have a problem with people voting for someone because he can read with passion? Isn't that how hitler came to power?

he was pointing out how you chose democrats instead of talking about everybody.

he then pointed out the other end of the spectrum which you left out, and how your generalization is stupid.

which I agree.

We all understand your conservative. which is why you left out the republican side who is just as stupid as the select few democrats you just listed.

No, I chose democrats because our democrat president is the one that is pushing this idea. Also, if you've noticed, most democrat candidates are listed first on ballots. If not in yours, I can vouch every district I've voted in.

I would also suggest you read his statement again, as he never mentioned republicans or conservatives. This leads me to believe you associate conservatives with rednecks. That is a foolish mistake on your part.

I stated that stupid people, or ignorant people, should not vote. I don't care about their color, location, or party affiliation.

you just tried to make a correlation between who jimmy kimmel interviews on his show with democrats, then say it's a foolish statement for me to make the connection between red necks and republicans?

ok.

Once again, if you'd read what I wrote, I'm associating the people that Kimmel and Watters interviews as stupid, not republican or democrat. No where did I say they were affiliated with either party. I said that I believe our president is pushing for mandatory voting as he believes they'll vote democrat. I don't think these people should vote because they're uniformed, and they will vote for whoever promises the most. As the democrats have a habit of promising 'free' healthcare, pay equality, and other benefits, the uniformed (stupid) will vote for what they can get for 'free'.

First you mention jimmy kimmel.

then you say the people he interviews are stupid.

then you say the statements they make has you wondering about democrats and uniformed voters.

so again, how are you claiming to not talk about a specific party when thats exactly what you did?

Let's see if I can explain this again. A democrat president has a wish to see mandatory voting. I asked if the democrats have done a study that shows that uninformed people tend to pick the first name listed. That is not saying the stupid people out there are democrats. That is saying that the democrats might have found a way to manipulate the stupid. I also stated most of the stupid will vote for the worst reasons, like a good public speaker or for 'free' stuff.

If you ever watch these interviews, the people that make the cut and get on TV have no clue who the vice president is, the speaker is, how our government works, or anything other than their own personal desires. I've watched these people sign petitions to end women's suffrage, repeal the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and other laws, with no clue what any of it means.

Operative words: " if you'd read what I wrote."

By now you certainly understand that many posters will read a post through the narrow vision of their personal agenda as opposed to reading with eyes and mind wide open. It really is a darn shame.

Then those same folks will post a racial thread about racism and debate the wrongs done 100 years ago. All the while reading replies with the same closed eye and mind mentality.

Tired of these indirect "some posters" crap.

You're a grown woman. freaking act like it. If you have a problem with me, call me out by name.

You and other posters constantly make me happy that I didn't deploy with any of you. The way y'all post makes you seem like scared punks.

jesus.

why are you laughing? They know exactly who i'm talking about. As I have repeatedly called people out over and over again.

you're probably one of them.

The more I think about it, the more I might be OK with mandatory voting, as long as we get a "None of the above" option ..... one that can win the election, and force a new election with new candidates.

Glad you did the research, arch.

I tried to find it when clevesteve originally posted his question, but ran out of time (it was a very long and freakishly bizarre day).

Using your time code, I went there and watched the clip for context.

It was as you described it. Dude was just talking "off the cuff" to folks the way we Dawgs might, if asked the same question. I got no hint that he was trying to manipulate public policy with his statement. In fact, it seemed like he was just "thinking out loud" during that point of his answer... while meandering his way to another, more salient point. It really seemed more like a 'side issue' than anything else.

In his long windup, he talked about Large Money being at the root of gridlock on CapHill. How too much time/energy/resources gets spent on fundraising instead of governance... and how big money pushed the agendas of those in office. He mentioned how this tended to push congressfolk away from the center- which is where compromise (and incremental progress) actually happens. He also talked of how Gerrymandering (on both sides) compels candidates to cater to the 'extreme' base on either side... in that they all know that if they lock up their base, they've pretty much already won come election time. He also mentioned how Citizens United has accelerated this dynamic.

[I find it interesting that even the most partisan posters on this board from EITHER side have said the exact same things, at one time or another]

It was in the context of 'district Gerrymandering' that his comments were made. His opening statement on the subject:

[1:11.01]: "I don't think that insiders should be drawing the lines, and decide who their voters are... the notion that in this day and age we'd be deliberately trying to restrict the franchise makes no sense to me... and at the state and local levels, you can push back against that... and make sure that we're expanding the franchise, not restricting it."

So that's the conversational (and contextual) set-up, transcribed (almost) word-for-word. (I did this for you, clevesteve... )

Then, at the 1:12:24 point, he said (direct transcript):

"In Australia (and other countries), there's mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country. Because the people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minority groups- and they're often the folks who are scratching and climbing to get into the middle class...working hard- there's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls- we should want to get them in to the polls. So that may end up being a better strategy in the short term. Long-term, I think it would be fun to have a constitutional amendment process about how our financial system works. But realistically (given the requirements of that process), that would be a long-term proposition."

___________________

So, Dawgs: that's the segment in question, pretty much transcribed word-for-word.... courtesy of Yours Truly. Make of it what you will (...and I KNOW you will...)

___________________

Good call, arch. I saw it exactly as you did.

Gotta disagree slightly. I think he was trying to influence public policy with his comments about "some people trying to keep them from the polls". I think the original article posted pointed that out as a comment about the wave of Voter ID laws that have been passed (and found Constitutional). To me that's clearly a political statement ( and flat out lie, but that's beside the point. But being a lie bolsters my belief that it IS a political statement .!)

But I don't believe that Obama is getting ready to draft an Executive Order forcing people to vote as I'm sure some people are thinking.


But isn't it strange that the leader of the "free world" is using a country who's gov't forces people to vote as his example? I mean, I totally get the concept that high voter turnout WOULD be transformative for the political landscape in this country. I'm sure most of what he was saying truly was off the cuff, but I just find it odd that one of the first things that comes to mind is an example of a country who the few people at the top use force to make the populace do what they subjectively think they should be doing.

Mandatory voting is a bad thing. Voters already vote people into office to limit my freedoms. When you make it mandatory, you will get things like free government pot, free auto insurance, free housing, free medical care, etc... No one will want to work. Someone else will provide for me all I have to do is vote for those who will legislate that I get what I want. We can all be janitors at the local train station.

You can take the tator out of that to make it more acurate.

I COMPLETELY AGREE with you. And what I'm saying is that you can put apply that exact same logic to uninformed redneck (read- southern conservatives) who do the EXACT same thing. They'll vote for whoever Faux News or their local hypocrite church leader tells them to vote for. Republicans are awfully good at making rah-rah speeches to get the masses all riled up!

Apparently you didn't talk to enough stupid people before the 2008 election. There is plenty of dumb to go around on both sides....hell Bush was elected TWICE so the Republican stooopids must have come out in masses in 2000 and 2004, right? The biggest advantage Obama had during the 2008 elections was that he wasn't Bush. People wanted anything but more of that, regardless of what he stood for. Bush was so bad that most undecided voters didn't even care to investigate. "Not Bush? Good enough for me."

And I agree with Obama that it would be nice if everyone voted... but they have to make informed choices. That's neither practical or realistic.

At least that would help them to catch up with the republicans and FOX.

This begs the question, do conservatives want to be freeloading train station janitors or are they expressing concern that non-conservatives are the majority?

If you think about it isn't this what's happening now.

IMO those same people at the top would still find ways to manipulate.